[Ben Ficklin]

I can't see how anybody would think that a Bush nominee is going to be 100% forthright with his Senate interrogators. Especially if his position has no bearing on the issue.

Were he to say that he was opposed to the ban, it would be something the dems would use against him, possibly deny him confirmation.

Albert may well support the ban, but based only on this event, it would be hard to say for sure.

On the other hand, if he has past history or paper trail indicating support for the ban, you would say that the statement to the senators is confirmation.

Have you ever been in a job interview and told the man what he wanted to hear?

[Stew Padasso]

"Have you ever been in a job interview and told the man what he wanted to hear?"

There is a little more at stake here then some ambitious applicant fluffing up a resume.

[notigar]

Under oath?

[El Gato]

Were he to say that he was opposed to the ban, it would be something the dems would use against him, possibly deny him confirmation.

The dems are the minority in the Senate. More so now than before the last election.